arizona immigration lawsuit

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by riverrat, Jul 2, 2010.

  1. riverrat

    riverrat New Member

    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I heard on the radio today that a federal court judge has allowed the country of mexico to join in on the lawsuit against arizonas new immigration laws. The judge presiding over the case sited that its a violation of mexicos citizens rights to ban them from comming into our country. Did I miss something here
     
  2. sqkcrk

    sqkcrk New Member

    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not if what you think you heard is what you actually heard and the way you presented it here. Crazier things have been said, though I can't point to one at this time.
     

  3. Walt B

    Walt B New Member

    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know what was the source, but it does sound crazy. One would hope that there was a news reporting agency that didn't have an agenda, but I don't suppose there is one.

    What I believe is the gist of the federal lawsuit simply centers around local officials enforcing federal law. As odd as it sounds, it seems to make sense with my previous experience.

    Where we last lived was next to an old house converted to apartments that were rented to families. It was great fun sharing cultures...I even cut down some golf clubs so the children could "play golf". Gradually the families moved and were replaced by single men...with resulting problems.

    On one of the many police calls, an officer mentioned that they were all "illegal". When I asked why they don't arrest them he said that if someone from INS doesn't show up within 15 minutes of the arrest, they have to release them. The nearest INS was in Austin, an hour away.

    One officer even suggested I call INS. I did. The response, "Well, what do you want us to do about it?" When I responded "your job", I was told they were busy and couldn't get out for a year...I waited, they didn't show up. Difficult situation.

    As an aside, I think a neighborhood will find its lowest common denominator. We fought that trend for 7 of 9 years. Now we have cows for neighbors. An altogether satisfying situation.

    Walt
     
  4. cow pollinater

    cow pollinater New Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    1. FEDERAL judge... I don't know who it was but I'd kind of have to guess that a federal judge would feel threatened by states making law that parellels federal law but actually gets enforced... makes the feds feel incompetent. They'll seek allies anywhere they can.
    2. The more realistic people in our government(my opinion, of course) see the need for the illegal immigrants that work and therefore the effect of slamming the door in their face. As much as I am for states rights and am also against ILLEGAL immigration, I'm nervous about any law that just slams the door and would likely fight it myself if it came down to it. There are a few people in government who understand this.
    3. Hispanics are a BIG voting block that is just starting to pay attention. All areas of government are in a jockey-ing position to gain their confidence. Judges are suposed to be imune but they aren't.
     
  5. Iddee

    Iddee New Member

    Messages:
    8,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    >>>>The more realistic people in our government(my opinion, of course) see the need for the illegal immigrants that work<<<<

    You have to be kidding...... If the 20 million illegals were sent back and the 20 million welfare legals were cut off, they would go to work and a few billion a year would be saved.
     
  6. cow pollinater

    cow pollinater New Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My biggest nightmare with my involvement in the biggest dairy economy in the world as well as my involvement in the biggest citrus industry in the world as well as the biggest beekeeping industry.... is that they try to replace mexicans with someone who doesn't know what they are doing and doesn't want to work. As much as I hate to say it, it's easier to pay them not to work and get someone that does.
    I have a customer who will create a job for any citizen that wants one and yet the only two people on the place that I can talk to speak broken English at best.
    With Mexicans we get someone that wants to work and grew up around cows/farming and is willing to do it without complaints for not much money and do a quality job when nobody's watching.
    Guest worker program :thumbsup: We need to know who is here but we have to allow them to come here.
     
  7. Iddee

    Iddee New Member

    Messages:
    8,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And we had the same quality worker on the dairy when I was a kid, but they were born here. Why should they want to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 3/4 what they can get on welfare and not work at all?

    Like I said, cut the welfare off, let them get hungry, and they will work as good or better than someone looking over their shoulder for the ins all day.
     
  8. srvfantexasflood

    srvfantexasflood New Member

    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wonder what LBJ would think today. I don't think this is what he had in mind when he signed legislation to fight the "war on poverty".
     
  9. riverrat

    riverrat New Member

    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
  10. Bens-Bees

    Bens-Bees New Member

    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I understand it the only question before this judge was whether or not Mexico had any standing, and the judge found that since the AZ law affects Mexican citizens that Mexico does have standing. But whether or not Mexico has a serious case here, that's another story. Remember this is the USA, where you can sue anyone for darn near any reason.

    But what strikes me as odd is that they aren't creating a new lawsuit, they are just joining another one, one that isn't seeking damages but simply seeks to overturn the law... I am not sure I understand the point of joining that suit.
     
  11. tecumseh

    tecumseh New Member

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    oh another story from the fox news propaganda/disinformation net work... who's logo should read 'from the folks that failed to bring you those weapons of mass destruction, so mass deception will have to do for right now'.

    I am surprised that many of the good business folks here who regularly work illegal on the various federal contracts have not now joined the suit as a party to be harmed by the law. after all if all those contractors were forced to hire legal residents all that fica/ss monies deducted from some illegal's check will no longer be available to buy their wife a new mercedez every other year.
     
  12. riverrat

    riverrat New Member

    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I know how fox is I googled for the story and several came up. That just happens to be the one I picked. Our media today has pushed there consitiutional right to free press well beyond its original intended limits. Whats sad is the american public in general listens to the media and believes it to be the gospel. That is how the liberal media got obama elected. The media put him front and center and most people are like cattle once you get a few headed to the chute the rest will soon follow. Even if the chute leads to a 100 foot drop of on the other end.
     
  13. tecumseh

    tecumseh New Member

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    not wishing to go totally political here riverrat but..

    I see nothing particularly liberal (as in liberating) in regards to the media. I personally tag 'the media' as first and foremost as being 'commercial' and therefore their interest is primarily to make money. in all these commercial media sources the line between entertainment and news is now (more than ever) somewhat to highly blurred. some of the media does seem quite well disposed to constantly misinform their viewers and one might wonder if your 'cattle' analogy might apply..... although I don't think it was the audience of folks you were alluding to.

    the us and them strategy of divide and conquer (you from your money in these days and time) works pretty well here since each election cycle every political office campaign requires more money that is primarily pumped into this or that media form (which is basically all owned by the same folks anyway).

    as far as I have read???? I don't think the bill of right places any limits on the rights of a free and independent press.
     
  14. Robo

    Robo New Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has the definition of WMD changed now that Obama is president?
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =127978619

    I don't think anyone would deny that car bombs where found in Iraq. But what seems even odder to me is that a propane tank and fireworks are consider WMD, but mustard and serin gas are not :confused:
     
  15. tecumseh

    tecumseh New Member

    Messages:
    6,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not certain there ever was a formal definition for WMD Robo.. which certainly was at least part of the smoke and deception used to get folks to go along with the Iraq war thingee in the first place. Is a machine gun or a tank not a weapon of mass destruction?

    fox news should gets a lot of credit for luring folks into the debacle which will financially burden your children for a least a generation. on the scale of debacles this certainly rates with the BP spill yet no one get called for the huge error. no political types gets called up on war crimes for invading some small country without just cause, nor called up before some judge for outing CIA operatives when their information doesn't suit your purposes. I have heard one well known conservative writer apologize for his culpability in this criminal act... he is the only conservative that deserves any respect and will continue to be the only conservative writer who I could believe anything he writes or says.
     
  16. sqkcrk

    sqkcrk New Member

    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not sure what intended limits you are refering to here riverat. Like tec said, I don't read any limitations in the words in The Bill of Rights as per freedom of speech.

    The press, during our Founding Father's time, was literally that, printing presses. Which I am sure that you know, so I am not telling you anything new.

    But who controled them? Who used them and how? And yet the Bill of Rights gaurantees freedom of speech. amazing.

    I say amazing, because i have read some of that actual press. Mostly The Virginia Gazette circa 17whatever. It was often only full of, all 4 pages, being a single sheet of paper folded once to make 4 pages, articles written by someone else. And where did they get those articles? They stole them from other newspapers of the times. Plagerized them. Literally stole them. Interesting.
     
  17. riverrat

    riverrat New Member

    Messages:
    2,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dont think our forefathers set out for the press to be able to influence the country by reporting half truths and editing stories to make them different than originally intended. They do this for the sole purpose of leading the american people into a way of thinking that may not benifical to the country. The media is a powerful tool that instead of keeping people informed as originally protected by the constitution. Is now used to mold peoples thoughts into the image of the medias hidden agendas. When the media does this they have pushed there constitutional right to the limit as to what our forefathers originally had in mind. Just my thought, however, you guys are correct there is no actual limits placed on freedom of speach. I would like to add. The constitution is read and interpreted differently by different people as to what our forefathers set out to do when they wrote the constitution. :thumbsup:
     
  18. sqkcrk

    sqkcrk New Member

    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They may not have set out for the press to be able to influence the country, but that is how, I believe, they used it. It was used to influence the people. And, when Governments do that, that is called propoganda, isn't it?

    "what our forefathers had in mind." What, in your opinion, did they have in mind? Ever since newspapers have been around someone has been using them in untoward ways, to try to influence peoples to do their bidding. And usually those people are the owners of the presses. Now it is the owners of the televised "news" outlets.

    Our forefathers were a collective group that arrived at a consensus in order to move ahead w/ what they were trying to do. Set up a new and independent republic. Some how they were successful.

    "It's a republic, Madame, if we can keep it." Ben Franklin, I believe.
     
  19. Bens-Bees

    Bens-Bees New Member

    Messages:
    978
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The one thing I know about this issue is that if the Arizona law is constitutional, then there's nothing to worry about from these lawsuits, and if not, then it needed to be re-written anyway.
     
  20. anderapadoker

    anderapadoker New Member

    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :eek: You missed much not something dude. :eek: